Well, then I guess I would, too. Here are my results from the "theological worldview" meme/quiz going around my friends' blogs:

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Then get me angry. Callimachus has just such a post on the International Red Cross.

Just a reminder that the same International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that is so aghast over America's "war crimes" knew about the Nazi atrocities during World War II and essentially did nothing, allowing itself to be fooled by transparent ruses and official denials.

It knew about the concentration camps as early as 1942. In February 1945, the President of the Red Cross wrote to a U.S. official: "Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities." How chilling that the ICRC pretended to care about the Holocaust while in the same sentences adopting Nazi phraseology ("the Jewish problem") to euphemize it.

The Red Cross also knew about crimes against POWs...

A ICRC report on Stalag IX-B noted the same segregation, but the report said "no other discrimination was made against them." No, indeed, unless you count the Jewish-Americans -- along with about 330 non-Jews -- being sent to a slave labor camp associated with Buchenwald, where American POWs died at a higher rate than they would anywhere else during the war.

But Gitmo, now that's a war crime!

Not a single penny from me (and I will seek to convince those close to me) will go to the International Red Cross or any of its chapters. They obviously haven't changed an iota: once water-carriers for genocidists, always their water-carriers. Scum.

It doesn't take any particular political slant to be concerned about what is going on in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But at the same time, it should be obvious that these are cases of military detention, the byproduct of actual shooting warfare -- despite the Amnesty report's constant attempts to scare quote this fact away. There may be some ugly stuff going on, but excesses in war are fundamentally different from abuses of power in times of peace.

The labeling of Guantanamo as "the gulag of our time" shows just how far Amnesty has lost its compass. Compare Guantanamo to Colditz or Andersonville or Hoa Lo, if you will; the Soviet comparison is as obscene as if the referent had been the Holocaust. And if Amnesty's obsession with indicting the USA has led it to trivialize the worst crimes of the 20th century, we shouldn't be surprised to see it similarly diverted from giving due weight to the worst of the 21st.